As I have, said in my previous post Senator Elizabeth Warren Interview, Elizabeth Warren is under the misapprehension that sanctions were effective in getting Iran to negotiate with us on their nuclear program. Misapprehensions are fine if they don’t leave you with the wrong lesson that you wrongly apply in some future situation. This is why I harp on them.

Perhaps Warren thinks that Obama made a fair offer to Iran earlier in his Presidency, they rejected it, and we had to go to sanctions.

Well, in November 2013, I wrote a blog post about How France Sank the Iran-Nuke Deal. I quoted an article from Consortium News.

Now the Obama administration will face a decision whether to press Iran to go along with those changes or to go back to the original compromise when political directors of the six powers and Iran reconvene Nov. 20. That choice will provide the key indicator of how strongly committed Obama is to reaching an agreement with Iran.

At the time, I commented about the article,

The United States has a long history of making offers to Iran such that the public face of the offer seems eminently reasonable, but hidden actions by the U.S. are slaps in the face of Iran.  I wonder why the U.S. press does not educate the U.S. public about this history.

Well, nobody has mended their ways since I wrote that.  I knew it was too much to expect.  There seems to be something hidden from us that is riding on the need for this deception.  Too bad we will find out what it is only when we are deeper into the hole we are digging for ourselves.

Bernie Sanders posted the image below on his Facebook page.

I then shared it on my Facebook page.

To me, it sounds like Bernie Sanders has positions that I can support on a wide range of issues. I am not sure Elizabeth Warren has arrived at this level of broad understanding that Sanders has. For instance, I think she is very naive about the role that sanctions played in getting negotiations going with the Iranians. She doesn’t seem to have seen the evidence that the Iranians offered a much better deal to the US when President Bush was in office, but he rejected it in favor of sanctions. Maybe the lack of effectiveness of the sanctions is what finally convinced us to start talking to the Iranians, In that case, Warren has got the story quite backwards. I am hoping that she will come around after I sent her the explanation and a link to the backup data. However, Bernie Sanders is already at that kind of sophistication.

Because of Roger’s comment below that seems to disbelieve my claim to have backup data, I’ll put the link to some of that right here

If you have access to Facebook, you might enjoy or abhor the conversations there.

Informed Comment has the article Iran: What did Khamenei really say about the Lausanne Agreement, and Why? by Juan Cole.

Hard liners are jumping up and down mad about what Rouhani & Zarif are alleged to have given away to the West, and my suspicion is that Khamenei’s demand for immediate end of sanctions is a way of tossing them a bone for the moment. If you read the whole speech he comes back and is still supportive of the process at the end, saying he is not for or against the deal since there really is no deal yet, just a framework agreement for negotiating the deal. But then that means he did not, contrary to the headlines, come out against the deal today.

Juan Cole is telling you what he thinks is going on.  In using the phrase “my suspicion is”, he gives you fair warning that he does not have inside knowledge into Khamenei’s brain.  I just think that, given the one-sided presentation of the negotiations by our new media, it is valuable to consider other possible interpretations that are driven by different agendas.  I have not researched what Juan Cole’s agenda is, but I assume he must have one.

Appointing Loretta Lynch as Attorney General will just further the aims of Wall Street to avoid prosecution.  We need an Attorney General who sides with the ordinary people, not the crooked CEOs on Wall Street.

I just got email from Senator Patrick Lahey, asking me to sign a petition for Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General.  I told him that he should be ashamed of himself for pushing the nomination of another Wall Street lackey in the mold of Eric Holder.

See my previous post Bill Black: HSBC Violates its Sweetheart Deal and Loretta Lynch Praises It.

Market Watch has the article Move over oil. Strong dollar now choking off U.S. inflation.

Yet the strong dollar also makes U.S. goods and services more expensive for foreigners to buy, reducing demand for American-made exports. That’s cutting into corporate profits and could even cost American jobs, potentially slowing the nation’s pace of growth.

If the dollar remains strong, inflation is unlikely to rise much in the near future as the Fed has been hoping. The central bank for months had stuck to a prediction that the decline in inflation was a temporary phenomenon that would soon be reversed.

I wonder how this news fits in with Rand Paul’s brilliant analysis of how Fed policy of creating too much money out of thin air combined with our deficit spending are going to bring on the ravages of inflation.  The Fed just seems to debasing our collapsing dollar that nobody in the world will want anymore.

I have no idea what the personal consumption expenditure price index is, but the Fed seems to be having a devil of a time getting it anywhere near a 2% target rate. It did seem to rise rapidly when we had some economic stimulus coming from our fiscal policy, but now that Obama is lowering the deficit, the inflation rate is dropping back near the recession level.

As for Rand Paul and his father Ron Paul, what do they call medical experts who prescribe large doses of the wrong medicine at exactly the most inopportune times?

The Boston Globe has the article Clinton taps Harvard professor’s ideas on social mobility.  I am not a subscriber anymore, but I just had to follow the link to see who this Harvard Professor could be. Much to my chagrin, he wasn’t among the wacky ones I know about (Martin Feldstein).

Chetty’s emphasis on upward mobility offers a less divisive way to address middle class economic issues than the rhetoric of income inequality that progressives in the Democratic Party like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and her followers are pushing. It’s also more palatable to large corporations and wealthy donors who have funded her previous campaigns.

Hillary wouldn’t want to offend anyone in her social circle, or should I say criminal enterprise.

She’s taken series shots at Senate Republicans for stalling the nomination of Loretta Lynch for attorney general via her Twitter feed.

I can’t figure out what the interest in Loretta Lynch is.  She is no less a product of Wall Street than the current Attorney General, Eric Holder.  Lynch might even be more culpable than Holder in the failure of the Department of Justice to prosecute the crooks on Wall Street.  After all, the crimes were/are committed in Lynch’s U.S. Attorney district

The research Chetty and his team have done shows that children who grow up in parts of the country with less segregation, less income inequality, stronger schools, more social capital, and stable families are more likely to improve their social standing as adults. He and his colleagues are preparing to release policy prescriptions in coming months.

Quelle suprise!  Of course, it is always good to have the data to show that what seems to be obvious is actually true. i don’t know what kind of policy presecriptions these people will come up with, but I can imagine.  My response to Hillary’s promotion of these prescriptions will probably be along the lines, “My God, woman.  You want to fix what’s wrong with the poor, while your rich pals are robbing us blind?  What kind of fools do you take us for?”

He also spoke at last year’s Clinton Global Initiative meeting, where he mentioned his signature eye-popping statistic: “Chances of achieving the ‘American Dream’ are almost two times higher in Canada than the United States,” he said, showing slide with data to back up the claim.

Darn those Canadians.  They live on the same continent that we do, and they are better than we are at Democracy and Capitalism.  It must be something about living north of us.  I am pretty sure they look down upon us as we do to people from Mexico.  Or northerners in this country look upon southerners in this country.  Maybe the cold is good for the brain.

Other researchers on his project said that people from different political backgrounds tend to seize on different parts of the work. “When you look at the data it is a political Rorschach test,” said Nathaniel Hendren, an assistant professor at Harvard.

How am I doing on that Rorschach test?

One of the commenters on the Globe article gave the URL to Raj Chetty’s work, www.rajchetty.com.  With just a few moments of poking around, I came across the working paper, IS THE UNITED STATES STILL A LAND OF OPPORTUNITY? RECENT TRENDS IN INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY.  The excerpt below comes from the abstract.

Based on all of these measures, we find that children entering the labor market today have the same chances of moving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s. However, because inequality has risen, the consequences of the “birth lottery” – the parents to whom a child is born – are larger today than in the past.

Let’s see if I have this right – two plus two equals five.  Social mobility has not changed in over 40 years yet inequality has risen.  How did the inequality grow without any change in social mobility?  It must be the birthrate of the lower classes.  The rich are too busy grabbing all the money to have children.

By the way, some of the comments on the Globe article are really classic.